Technology Acceptance of Virtual Reality

for Travel Planning

Peter Disztinger, Stephan Schlögl and Aleksander Groth

Abstract The appearance of affordable hardware has made Virtual Reality

(VR) one of 2015s most discussed electronic consumer devices. Its technological
power lies in its intensity and the simulated realism it is able to provide. Although
gaming is the main driver behind current developments, other domains may benefit
as well. Tourism and destination management in particular can be considered for
application. Within this context, this technology would not only allow for a more
realistic pre-experience of potential destinations, but also enable tourism providers
with novel ways of promoting their services to prospective tourists. In order to
estimate the potential of VR in tourism, a survey based on the Technology
Acceptance Model, has been conducted. After virtually travelling to a selected
destination, participants had to complete a 36-item questionnaire. Results indicate
significant effects of Perceived Immersion, Interest, Perceived Enjoyment and
Perceived Usefulness on the Intention to Use VR technology for travel planning.

Keywords Virtual reality
Technology acceptance
Travel planning

Destination management

1 Introduction

Tourism areas around the globe have always been facing similar challenges when
promoting their destination—prospective visitors have to be convinced to visit
a destination and its attractions from afar. In recent years, however, the role

P. Disztinger
S. Schlögl (&)
A. Groth

Interaction Lab Department Management, Communication & IT (MCiT),
MCI Management Center Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
e-mail: stephan.schloegl@mci.edu
P. Disztinger
e-mail: p.disztinger@mci4me.at
A. Groth
e-mail: aleksander.groth@mci.edu

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 255

R. Schegg and B. Stangl (eds.), Information and Communication Technologies
in Tourism 2017, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51168-9_19
256 P. Disztinger et al.

technology plays in this process has significantly changed. In particular, the rapid
dissemination of the Internet has had a fundamental impact on how travellers plan
and book trips (Buhalis & Law, 2008). This effect has further intensified through
the growing emergence of Social Media and Web 2.0 applications to the point that
people today actively influence the reputation and standing of a destination by
publicly posting relevant reviews, videos and photos (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Yet,
even with this rather technology-oriented destination marketing, competition
between destinations is high and so marketers continuously search for new, more
emotional and immersive ways of promoting their products (Hays, Page, & Buhalis,
2013). Virtual Reality (VR) may be seen as one such technology that has the
potential to significantly change the way Destination Management Offices
(DMO) advertise their region. Head Mounted Displays (HMD), transport the wearer
into an ‘artificial world’ where he/she is able to interact with and experience digital
content at a different level of immersion (Fox, Arena, & Bailenson, 2009). HMDs
are designed to isolate the user from outside influences. This enhances the per-
ception of presence in a virtual environment and intensifies the experience. For
Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg VR is thus “the next major com-
puting and communication platform after phones”.1 This prediction led him to
invest two billion US Dollars in Oculus VR, a company known for their high-end
virtual reality headset called Rift. A different approach is pursued by Google, who
released a design for a phone holder which transforms ordinary smartphones into
VR headsets called Google Cardboard.2
Although VR may be considered a potential new marketing channel, its
acceptance within the tourism domain is barely explored. So far the literature
defines this unorthodox way of sampling a potential product as experimental
marketing. That is, rather than looking at a destination through traditional adver-
tising media (e.g. print or electronic catalogues) consumers can actually dive in, i.e.
feel and experience, rather than just look at pictures. Consequently, travel agencies
are able to address customer needs better and more directly. Given the novelty and
immersion of this experience, the effect is particularly strong. In addition, people
are unfamiliar to these types of experiences and thus have not built up resistances
against marketing stimuli through VR interfaces (Pine & Gilmore, 2011). However,
as with all new technologies, VR may only be successful when it is widely
accepted. While this type of technology acceptance for VR applications has been
researched in the educational and medical sector (e.g. Kothgassner et al., 2012;
Bertrand & Bouchard, 2008), studies on VR for travelling or tourism are scarce,
mainly focusing on augmented or mixed reality applications (e.g. Haugstvedt &
Krogstie, 2012; Lee, Chung, & Jung 2015). Hence this study explores the following
research quest: “Which influencing factors constitute the acceptance of VR tech-
nologies in the context of travel planning?”

1
See Zuckerberg (2015).
2
See Simonite (2015).
Technology Acceptance of Virtual Reality … 257

2 Related Work

VR generally refers to artificial, digital worlds in which users can interact and
navigate. A VR system usually provides a real-time, viewer-centred head-tracking
perspective with a large angle of view, interactive controls, and a binocular display
(Cruz-Neira, Sandin, & DeFanti, 1993; Steuer, 1992). The users’ movements are
tracked and their surroundings are digitally rendered and visualized, according to
these movements (Fox et al., 2009). The competing term Virtual Environment
(VE) has a somewhat similar but more inclusive definition, which encompasses not
only visual stimuli but also sound, touch, and smell (Cruz-Neira et al., 1993). The
main goal of VR is to create an illusion of being in a believable environment where
users interact efficiently in performing specific tasks. Two main factors are nec-
essary to provide a VR experience: (1) physical immersion and (2) psychological
presence. Physical immersion refers to the degree to which a user is isolated from
reality. Additional stimuli, such as 3D-sound, increase the perceived sensation of
immersion (Gutiérrez, Vexo, & Thalmann, 2008). Psychological presence refers to
the sensation of being in a VE rather than in the place the user’s physical body is
actually located (Sanchez-Vives & Slater, 2005). The user gains the sensation of
being in the VR and immerses into this new world. His/her attention shifts to the
new reality and is therefore encapsulated from external stimuli and effects. In the
literature this is often characterized as transportation. Users tend to feel immersed in
a VR when they report the sensation of arriving in the artificial world (Schuemie
et al., 2001). Presence therefore describes—on a subjective level—the extent to
which the user is feeling present in the VE.

2.1 Virtual Reality in Tourism

As mentioned earlier, VR may significantly impact the tourism marketing sector.

Sussmann and Vanhegan (2000) particularly refer to the possibility of creating new
(virtual) touristic areas incorporated in online-communities to help with the travel
planning process and consequently co-create future tourism destinations. VR
technology could support future visitors by letting them experience what is not yet
there. This sort of crowd testing is, according to the authors, not only cost effective
but also helps tailor projects to the needs of tourists (Heldal, 2007). The concept of
replacing the act of physical travelling through VR is also mentioned in many
studies but there is no evidence of it becoming reality any time soon (Guttentag,
2010).
The potential of VR in tourism lies in its ability to provide additional sensory
and visual information to prospective tourists. This characteristic has special sig-
nificance in the tourism domain as most tourism products are defined as confidence
258 P. Disztinger et al.

goods. A touristic service may not be tested in advance; hence customers rely in
their booking decision solely on the descriptive information they receive through
media or social channels. Within this complex decision process, VR can help by
providing richer information. Users can travel to the virtual surrogate destination
and perceive/sense a potential visit (Berger et al., 2007). Cheong (1995) studied
persons planning to travel to an island and therefore virtually visiting different
places that fit their interest; such as the Seychelles, the Virgin Islands, Jamaica, the
Maldives, etc. People with access to this type of technology made more informed
decisions due to the richness of the available information and also had more real-
istic expectations of their future journey. This may lead to a more satisfactory
vacation for the tourist (Cheong, 1995; Williams & Hobson, 1995) and increase
success for the destination (Berger et al., 2007).
There have been applications of VR with the aim to attract tourists for over a
decade. These implementations are built upon virtual tours on websites and basi-
cally consist of simple panoramic or 360° photographs or videos. They already
provide a better and richer information experience than traditional brochures, cat-
alogues, or websites and consequently offer significant advantages for prospective
tourists (Cho, Wang, & Fesenmaier, 2002). Many studies advocate the use of such
interactive features (Fotakis & Economides, 2008; Wan, Tsaur, Chiu, & Chiou,
2007). Lee and Oh (2007) found that incorporating a virtual tour or panoramic
photos offers psychological relief to people suffering from travel anxiety, and
Thomas and Care (2005) showed that a virtual tour increases the interest in visiting
a museum physically.
In cooperation with Samsung, the Marriot Hotel Group provided a so-called
VRoom Service in selected hotel rooms. These rooms were equipped with a VR Kit,
including a Samsung VR HMD, a Samsung Galaxy Smartphone, and an exclu-
sively tailored application based on Samsung’s Milk framework. Guests in these
rooms had the opportunity to follow the adventures of three world-travellers from
the Andres Mountains to a market in Beijing over to an ice-cream shop in Rwanda.3
The combination of storytelling and VR experience led to a huge success: approx.
500 million social media impressions and over 300 million PR impressions.4 The
Thomas Cook Group already uses VR technology to promote their products in ten
selected stores in the U.K., Germany and Belgium through try-before-you-buy
tours. Their promotion for New York boosted their revenue by 190 percent.5

3
Marriott Hotels’ Samsung Gear VR postcards are little works of art disguised as adverts.
Retrieved from http://www.t3.com/news/marriott-hotels-samsung-gear-vr-postcards-are-little-
works-of-art-disguised-as-adverts.
4
See Framestore Studio (2015)
5
How Oculus and Cardboard Are Going to Rock the Travel Industry. Retrieved from http://www.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-19/how-oculus-and-cardboard-are-going-to-rock-the-
travel-industry.
Technology Acceptance of Virtual Reality … 259

2.2 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

Through understanding acceptance as a positive reception of an idea, not only as

reactive tolerance but more in the sense of active willingness, it stands as a complex
interaction of cognitive and emotional processes, which leads to adoption (or
rejection) of an innovation (Königstorfer & Gröppel-Klein, 2008). When measuring
user acceptance, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by Davis (1986) is one
of the most applied models due to its straight forward and context-independent
applicability. In its purest form TAM uses the two core constructs Perceived
Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) to explain Behavioural
Intention to Use (BI) as a predecessor of Actual System Use or success of an
information system. Various meta-analyses by King and He (2006), Lee, Kozar and
Larsen (2003) and Legris, Ingham and Collerette (2003) could confirm the
robustness, parsimony, and universal applicability of this approach. Also in tourism
research, TAM has received considerable attention. Kim, Park and Morrison (2008)
used the model to explore the willingness of adopting mobile devices in the trip
planning process, and a study by Huang, Backman, Backman and Moore (2013)
employed TAM in order to test the applicability of 3D virtual worlds in travel and
tourism marketing.

3 Methodology

In order to expand previous work on technology acceptance, this study aims to

understand the acceptance of VR technology as a suitable medium for travel
planning. Davis’ (1986) core constructs used in TAM, i.e. PEOU and PU, were
applied in order to build the core basis of our research model. Davis’ Attitude
toward Using has, however, been omitted as an independent variable, as all par-
ticipants actually used VR technology before. The study was set up and conducted
employing a quantitative research methodology, testing and validating a number of
hypotheses (Veal, 1997).

3.1 Proposed Research Design

Starting with Davis’ (1986) original TAM core variables, the following two
hypotheses act as a base for our research design:
H1: Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) positively influences Behavioural Intention to
use (BI) VR technology for travel planning.
H2: Perceived Usefulness (PU) positively influences Behavioural Intention to use
(BI) VR technology for travel planning.
260 P. Disztinger et al.

Building upon more of the above mentioned previous work, this core model is
further modified and extended by adding the following independent variables
(Fig. 1): Perceived Enjoyment (PENJ), Interest (INT), Personal Innovativeness
(PI), Accessibility (ACC), Skepticism (SKE), Technology Anxiety (ANX), and
Perceived Immersion (PIM).
Within the technology acceptance literature, Perceived Enjoyment (PENJ) is
defined as the extent to which a system or service is perceived to be enjoyable.
Much of the early work in this area has been conducted in computer gaming (Davis,
Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1992). In the past decade, however, PENJ has gained
attention in information systems research, covering a variety of application domains
such as computer usage, Internet usage, e-learning, online shopping, and instant
messaging services (Ayeh, Au, & Law, 2013). For utilitarian systems, PENJ has
been found to be the weaker predecessor to user acceptance in comparison to PEOU
and PU (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). These systems are designed to provide mainly
instrumental value to the user. For hedonic systems, on the other hand, the main
objective is to encourage prolonged use. Within this context, a strong effect of
PENJ has been observed (van der Heijden, 2004), confirming that it is important for
fun-oriented system to be enjoyable. Thus, following Holsapple and Wu’s (2007)
categorization of VR being a hedonic rather than a utilitarian technology, the fol-
lowing hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Perceived Enjoyment (PENJ) positively influences Behavioural Intention to
Use (BI) VR technology for travel planning.
General Interest (INT) in technology is also said to positively influence the
intention to use. This construct has been applied as an extended TAM construct in
the studies of Romm-Livermore (2012) as well as Soesanto (2013). Within tourism,

Fig. 1 Proposed research model

Technology Acceptance of Virtual Reality … 261

Freidl (2006) included INT in order to test the acceptance of new technologies in
hotel rooms. Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: Interest (INT) positively influences Behavioural Intention to Use (BI) VR
technology for travel planning.
Agarwal and Prasad (1998) consider Personal Innovativeness (PI) as a user’s
willingness to try new technologies. PI is considered a personal trait derived from
Roger’s Diffusion of Innovations Theory (2003). A positive effect of PI on BI in a
VR related context has been observed by Yusoff, Zaman and Ahmad (2011). Raaij
and Schepers (2008) were able to confirm the same effect for virtual learning
environments in China. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H5: Personal Innovativeness (PI) positively influences Behavioural Intention to
Use (BI) VR technology for travel planning.
Accessibility (ACC) refers to whether a technology is perceived easy to obtain
and affordable (Kothgassner et al., 2012). Karahanna and Limayem (2000) distin-
guish between physical accessibility and information accessibility. The first refer-
ring to the extent to which one has physical access to the system, the latter to the
ability to retrieve the desired information form the system. Perceived access barriers
might negatively influence the adoption of a technology, whereas easy accessibility
may support the intention to use. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H6: Accessibility (ACC) positively influences the Behavioural Intention to Use (BI)
VR technology for travel planning.
Skepticism (SKE) assesses whether a technology is perceived risky, harmful or
disadvantageous. Distrust or skepticism is not widely applied in acceptance
research. Nevertheless, Kornwachs and Renn (2011) as well as Kothgassner et al.
(2012) include SKE in their information system studies. Although, it is more
common to use trust as the positive equivalent (e.g. Gefen, Karahanna, & Straub,
2003; Jacques, Garger, Brown, & Deale, 2009; Alsajjan and Dennis, 2010) due to
the physical invasiveness of VR it is proposed that:
H7: Skepticism (SKE) negatively influences Behavioural Intention to Use (BI) VR
technology for travel planning.
According to Brown (2002) Technology Anxiety (ANX) evokes anxious and
emotional reactions when using technology. It is also defined as one’s fear of using
technology (Simonson, Maurer, Montag-Torardi, & Whitaker, 1987). The construct
has been widely used in acceptance studies, (Lee et al., 2003) also leading to its
integration to the 3rd iteration of TAM, i.e. TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).
Hence, it is proposed that:
H8: Technology Anxiety (ANX) negatively influences Behavioural Intention to Use
(BI) VR technology for travel planning.
262 P. Disztinger et al.

Perceived Immersion (PIM) is a characteristic unique to VR and closely related

to technology use. It describes the extent to which a computer interface is capable
of transporting an inclusive, surrounding and vivid experience. This definition is
often criticized as it implies that every user is experiencing immersion the same way
and with the same intensity (Schmidt et al., 2013). However, studies by Jennett
et al. (2008) and Witmer and Singer (1998) have shown that individuals differ in
their perception of immersion, even if they use the same technology. Consequently,
PIM is defined as an individual’s ability to fully engage in a virtual environment.
Thus, following Kothgassner et al.’s (2012) argument that the degree of immersion
into VR increases acceptance of the technology, it is proposed that:
H9: Perceived Immersion (PIM) positively influences Behavioural Intention to Use
(BI) VR technology for travel planning.

3.2 Study and Questionnaire Design

In order to investigate the above proposed hypotheses, a mobile VR app focusing

on travel planning has been utilized. First, a number of different apps were com-
pared and evaluated based on their availability, content richness, trustworthiness,
universality, subjective immersion as well as their professionalism. Three potential
apps qualified, of which Google Street View6 was selected as the most suitable.
Next, a questionnaire survey was designed, which incorporated the relevant ques-
tion sets to test the above established hypotheses (cf. Table 1).
The Technology Usage Inventory (TUI) (Kothgassner et al., 2012) has been used
as a foundation. It was extended with additional (previously validated) items, all of
which used a Seven-Point-Likert scale ranging from “fully disagree” to “fully
agree”. In addition, participants had to provide some demographic information such
as age, country of origin and the VR device they used to try Google Street View.
The survey, together with some instructions on how to install and use the app with
various devices (i.e. Google Cardboard, HTC Vive, Oculus Rift), was posted on
Reddit in the appropriate VR and subreddits for travelling, on various related
Facebook groups, and VR community forums.
Before completing the survey, participants were asked to use Google Street View
on their device and virtually visit a potential holiday destination. While a number of
inspirational targets were given (e.g. Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro,
the Maldives, or the Empire State Building in New York City) participants were not
limited in their choice of destination nor the amount of time they could spend inside
the VR, before eventually completing the survey.

6
Google Street View: https://www.google.com/streetview/apps/.
Technology Acceptance of Virtual Reality … 263

Table 1 Questionnaire items and corresponding constructs

Construct Statement
PEOU PEOU1: Learning to operate the system was easy for me
PEOU2: Overall, I find the system easy to use
PEOU3: I think this technology is complicated to use
PU PU1: Using this technology would make travel planning more comfortable
PU2: This technology would help me making the task of travel planning more convenient
PU3: I find the system useful for travel planning tasks
PU4: This technology would support me in planning my future travels
BI BI1: Given that I have access to the system, I intent to buy it
BI2: Assuming I have access to the system, I intent to use it
BI3: I would recommend such a system to my friends
PENJ PENJ1: I find using the system enjoyable
PENJ2: I have fun using the system
PENJ3: The actual process of using the system is pleasant
INT INT1: Throughout my life I have acquired a high level of technical knowledge
INT2: I inform myself when a new device is launched
INT3: I always try to stay up-to-date with the latest technology trends
INT4: I keep myself informed about technological advances
PI PI1: I’m curious about using computer-based technologies such as VR technology
PI2: I had already earlier an interest in computer-based technologies such as VR systems
PI3: I am eager to learn more about computer-based methods, such as VR technology
PI4: I’ve always been interested in computer-based technologies such as the VR
technology
ACC ACC1: I think that almost everyone can afford this technology
ACC2: I think this technology is basically accessible to everyone
ACC3: I think it is easy to acquire this technology
SKE SKE1: I think the using this technology is associated with a certain risk
SKE2: I think that this technology might be dangerous for me
SKE3: This technology would interfere with my daily routine
SKE4: Using this technology would bring more disadvantages than advantages for me
ANX ANX1: I often worry about being overwhelmed by new technology
ANX2: I am distrustful of new technical devices
ANX3: I find it hard to trust technical devices
ANX4: The idea of making a mistake when using a technical device scares me
PIM PIM1: In the virtual simulation I could for a moment let go of my real world problems
PIM2: During the virtual simulation, I forgot the world around me
PIM3: During the virtual simulation, I had the feeling I would truly experience the
situation
PIM4: During the virtual simulation, I felt like being in another world
264 P. Disztinger et al.

4 Results

Participants from 29 different countries completed a total of 148 valid question-

naires. The United States accounted for most respondents, followed by Austria,
Germany and the UK. Most respondents were male (83.1%) and between 14 and
72 years old; 60% of respondents were less than 30 years of age.

4.1 Reliability, Principle Factors, and Regression

SPSS was used to calculate Cronbach’s alphas for the proposed constructs. All
values were above 0.6, with the lowest reliability found in SKE (0.644) and the
highest in INT (0.939). In order to test if the data reflects the model structure, a
Principle Factor Analysis was conducted. Results from the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO) test measuring sampling adequacy showed a low diffusion in the correlation
pattern (KMO value = 0.873). The following primal component analysis identified
eight factors that exhibited an Initial Eigenvalue > 1. In combination, these factors
were able to explain 71.818% of the total data variance. Using a Promax rotation to
generate a component matrix, the SKE items did not load to any of the identified
eight factors and the PI and INT items did load to the same factor. Consequently,
SKE items were omitted from further analysis and PI and INT were merged into one
single factor called INT. This also led to the rejection of hypotheses H5 and H7 as
they were concerned with those now oppressed variable constructs.
Focusing on the exploration of the remaining constructs a linear regression
analysis was conducted. First, an ANOVA of the individual constructs aimed at
highlighting the relationship between the different components and the dependent
variable. Results showed that except for ANX all constructs exhibited a direct
significant influence on BI (p < 0.05). Next, in order to evaluate the fit of the model,
a multiple linear regression analysis was performed (Fig. 2). The resulting R2
explains 53.6% of the total variance of BI by combining all seven factors. The
Adjusted R2 of 0.512 furthermore highlights a high cross-validity, supporting the
overall generalizability of this result (Field, 2013). Looking at the analysis in more
detail, ACC and PEOU show no significant effect on BI. Consequently, hypotheses
H1, H6 and H8 were rejected. Yet all remaining hypotheses, i.e. H2, H3, H4 and H9
are supported by the data. In particular INT (b = 0.378) and PENJ (b = 0.305)
show strong effects on BI.
Technology Acceptance of Virtual Reality … 265

Fig. 2 Final research model with empirical results

5 Concluding Remarks, Limitations and Future

Directions

The purpose of Davis’ work (1986) was to measure and confirm new predictors for
Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU). Even though the
initial momentum was to understand and explain the acceptance of IT systems in
the work place, his model has been applied in a wide range of fields. For this study,
TAM was adapted to VR and travel planning. Our data confirms the relationship
between PU and BI. Evidence for a direct significant effect of PEOU on BI was,
however, not provided, although PEOU was generally high rated (mean = 6.19).
A reason may be the rather low interaction time participants had with the actual
device. Once set up the HMD works hassle-free rendering usability to be less of an
issue. Enjoyment (i.e. PENJ) on the other hand was found to be a good predictor for
BI. Results support what van der Heijden (2004) and Haugstvedt and Krogstie
(2012) have already observed before: intention to use a hedonistic system is heavily
influenced by the enjoyment level it produces. Thus, the more fun it is, the higher is
one’s intention to use it. The strongest predictor of BI and subsequently for the
postulated acceptance of VR systems was found in the general interest (INT) one
has in said technology. Here it seems that VR technology is still considered
futuristic, for which a certain ‘nerdiness’ is required in order for it to be accepted.
Finally, Perceived Immersion (PIM) was found to be a valid predictor for BI. Data
suggests that the intensity of the immersion also increases the intention to use and
consequently the acceptance of the system. In summary, one may argue that VR
technology, although significantly improved, is still a (small) step away from
mass-market acceptance. Additional improvements regarding its usefulness and
enjoyment factor as well as technical upgrades with respect to technology
immersion could, however, clear the path to success.
266 P. Disztinger et al.

Some limitations of the presented research have to be considered. First, the study
has been conducted quantitatively and remotely by participants without supervision.
A qualitative setting in an experimental format could share additional valuable
insights towards the experience of such technology. Second, only one application (i.e.
Google Street View) has been used, which was not necessarily produced for marketing
destinations but rather for navigation. Third, the majority of respondents owned a
personal VR device so that a positive attitude towards VR was already given. A less
technology aware response group may have led to a different, less optimistic result.
Future work aims at tackling mentioned limitations. An already planned
experimental study setting should generate additional qualitative feedback with
respect to the planning experience. Here it is also planned to use and compare
different VR applications. Finally, an expansion towards different target groups
should highlight potential differences from an end user perspective.

References

Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal
Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2),
204–215. doi:10.1287/isre.9.2.204.
Alsajjan, B., & Dennis, C. (2010). Internet banking acceptance model: Cross-market examination.
Journal of Business Research, 63(9–10), 957–963.
Ayeh, J. K., Au, N., & Law, R. (2013). Predicting the intention to use consumer-generated media
for travel planning. Tourism Management, 35, 132–143.
Berger, H., Dittenbach, M., Merkl, D., Bogdanovych, A., Simoff, S., & Sierra, C. (2007). Opening
new dimensions for e-Tourism. Virtual Reality, 11(2–3), 75–87.
Bertrand, M., & Bouchard, S. (2008). Applying the technology acceptance model to VR with
people who are favorable to its use. Journal of Cyber Therapy & Rehabilitation, 1(2).
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
Brown, I. T. J. (2002). Individual and technological factors affecting perceived ease of use of
web-based learning technologies in a developing country. EJISDC: The Electronic Journal on
Information Systems in Developing Countries. (9), 5.
Buhalis, D., & Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism management:
20 years on and 10 years after the Internet—The state of eTourism research. Tourism
Management, 29(4), 609–623.
Cheong, R. (1995). The virtual threat to travel and tourism. Tourism Management, 16(6), 417–
422.
Cho, Y.-H., Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2002). Searching for experiences. Journal of Travel
& Tourism Marketing, 12(4), 1–17.
Cruz-Neira, C., Sandin, D. J., & DeFanti, T. A. (1993). Surround screen projection based virtual
reality: The design and implementation of the CAVE. ACM Computer Graphics.
Davis, F. D., Jr. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems: Theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.
Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: And sex and drugs and rock
‘n’ roll (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Fotakis, T., & Economides, A. A. (2008). Art, science/technology and history museums on the
web. International Journal of Digital Culture and Electronic Tourism, 1(1), 37.
Technology Acceptance of Virtual Reality … 267

Freidl, C. (2006). Akzeptanz von neuen Technologien im Hotelzimmer: Krems Research.

Fox, J., Arena, D., & Bailenson, J. N. (2009). Virtual reality. Journal of Media Psychology, 21(3),
95–113.
Framestore Studio. (2015). Marriot VR-Postcards. Retrieved from http://framestorevr.com/
marriott-vr-postcards.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An
integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90.
Gutiérrez, M. A., Vexo, F., & Thalmann, D. (2008). Stepping into virtual reality. London: Springer.
Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism
Management, 31(5), 637–651.
Haugstvedt, A.-C., & Krogstie, J. (2012). Mobile augmented reality for cultural heritage: A
technology acceptance study. In 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and
Augmented Reality (ISMAR) (pp. 247–255).
Heldal, I. (2007). Supporting participation in planning new roads by using virtual reality systems.
Virtual Reality, 11(2), 145–159.
Hays, S., Page, S. J., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Social media as a destination marketing tool: Its use by
national tourism organisations. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(3), 211–239.
Holsapple, C. W., & Wu, J. (2007). User acceptance of virtual worlds. ACM SIGMIS Database, 38
(4), 86.
Huang, Y.-C., Backman, S. J., Backman, K. F., & Moore, D. (2013). Exploring user acceptance of
3D virtual worlds in travel and tourism marketing. Tourism Management, 36, 490–501.
Jacques, P. H., Garger, J., Brown, C. A., & Deale, C. S. (2009). Personality and virtual reality team
candidates: The roles of personality traits, technology anxiety and trust as predictors of
perceptions of virtual reality teams. Journal of Business & Management, 15(2), 143–157.
Jennett, C., Cox, A. L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., et al. (2008). Measuring and
defining the experience of immersion in games. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 66(9), 641–661.
Karahanna, E., & Limayem, M. (2000). E-Mail and V-Mail usage: Generalizing across
technologies. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 10(1),
Kornwachs, K., & Renn, O. (2011). Akzeptanz von Technik und Infrastrukturen: Anmerkungen
Zu Einem Aktuellen Gesellschaftlichen Problem. Acatech bezieht Position: 9, Online-Ausg.
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Kothgassner, O. D., Felnhofer, A., Hauk, N., Kastenhofer, E., Gomm, J., & Kryspin-Exner, I.
(2012). Technology Usage Inventory (TUI): Manual: Fragebogen und Manual. Wien.
Kim, D., Park, J., & Morrison, A. M. (2008). A model of traveler acceptance of mobile
technology. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(5), 393–407.
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information &
Management, 43(6), 740–755.
Königstorfer, J., & Gröppel-Klein, A. (2008). Akzeptanz von technologischen Innovationen:
Nutzungsentscheidungen von Konsumenten dargestellt am Beispiel von mobilen
Internetdiensten. Forschungsgruppe Konsum und Verhalten. s.l.: Gabler Verlag.
Lee, O., & Oh, J.-E. (2007). The impact of virtual reality functions of a hotel website on travel
anxiety. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(4), 584–586.
Lee, H., Chung, N., & Jung, T. (2015). Examining the cultural differences in acceptance of mobile
augmented reality: Comparison of South Korea and Ireland. In I. Tussyadiah & A. Inversini
(Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015 (pp. 477–491). Cham:
Springer International Publishing.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present,
and future. Communication of the Association for Information Systems, 12(1), 50.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical
review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191–204.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (2011). The experience economy (Updated ed.). Boston, Mass.:
Harvard Business Review Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
268 P. Disztinger et al.

Romm-Livermore, C. (2012). E-politics and organizational implications of the Internet: Power,

influence, and social change. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Schmidt, M., Kafka, J. X., Kothgassner, O. D., Hlavacs, H., Beutl, L., & Felnhofer, A. (2013).
Why does it always rain on me? Influence of gender and environmental factors on usability,
technology related anxiety and immersion in virtual environments. In Advances in computer
entertainment (pp. 392–402). Springer International Publishing.
Sanchez-Vives, M. V., & Slater, M. (2005). From presence to consciousness through virtual
reality. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(4), 332–339.
Schuemie, M. J., van der Straaten, P., Krijn, M., & van der Mas, C. A. P. G. (2001). Research on
presence in virtual reality: A survey. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 4(2), 183–201.
Simonson, M. R., Maurer, M., Montag-Torardi, M., & Whitaker, M. (1987). Development of a
standardized test of computer literacy and a computer anxiety index. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 3(2), 231–247.
Soesanto, H. (2013). The influence of relationship closeness, service quality and religiosity on
interest to saving through trust, word of mouth and attitude the study at Baitul Maal Wat
Tamwil In the province of Yogyakarta special region, Indonesia. IOSR Journal of Business and
Management, 13(3), 6–17.
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of
Communication, 42(4), 73–93.
Sussmann, S., & Vanhegan, H. J. (2000). Virtual reality and the tourism product: substitution or
complement.
Simonite, T. (2015). Google Aims to Make VR Hardware Irrelevant Before It Even Gets Going.
MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542991/
google-aims-to-make-vr-hardware-irrelevant-before-it-even-gets-going/.
Thomas, W. A., & Carey, S. (2005). Actual/virtual visits: What are the links. In Museums and the
Web.
van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 695–
704.
van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning
environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838–852.
Veal, A. J. (1997). Research methods for leisure and tourism: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Essex:
FT Prentice Hall.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on
interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
Wan, C.-S., Tsaur, S.-H., Chiu, Y.-L., & Chiou, W.-B. (2007). Is the advertising effect of virtual
experience always better or contingent on different travel destinations? Information Technology
& Tourism, 9(1), 45–54.
Williams, P., & Hobson, J. S. P. (1995). Virtual reality and tourism: Fact or fantasy? Tourism
Management, 16(6), 423–427.
Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence
questionnaire. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environmental, 7(3), 225–240.
Yusoff, R. C. M., Zaman, H. B., & Ahmad, A. (2011). Evaluation of user acceptance of mixed
reality technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(8).
Zuckerberg, M. (2015). Virtual Reality is the next platform: Occulus Connect² Keynote. Presented
at the Occulus Connect² Developer Conference. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=QlvXSFiu0zU.